It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California's Oldest Death-Row Inmate Scheduled for Midnight Execution.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Clarence Ray Allen,76 is blind, deaf and wheelchair bound. He is also scheduled to die a little after midnight tonight. While serving a life sentence for murder, he ordered the additonal murder of 7 more people who would be potential witnesses against him at any upcoming appeals. Three of the executions took place in a market on September 5th, 1980.
 



www.cnn.com
Barring a last-minute reprieve, Allen will become the oldest inmate put to death in California if he is executed as scheduled at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday, just after his 76th birthday.

Allen has gone blind and deaf and uses a wheelchair. His heart stopped in September, but doctors revived him and returned him to death row. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed his case on Sunday.

Allen already was serving life in prison for murder when he gave Hamilton a hit list of seven people who had testified against him. He wanted them dead so they couldn't testify during his appeals.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Here you have the lawyers at their best. They are pulling on the sympathy strings of the public, by portraying this animal as poor feeble old man. In all actuallity, he's a murderous monster who should have been executed years ago.

It also raises the question of putting to death the sick. On one hand I do consider it cruel to execute an elderly sick man, but on the other, should we the taxpayers be paying for his medical care so we can simply delay the inevitible? Hardly.

Capital punishment is a strongly contested arguement. This man has milked the system for years though. Some say he's to old to be put to death. I say the people were to young that HE put to death. But again, the lawyers play to your heartstrings and paint this man as a kind and loving grandfatherly type.

Related News Links:
www.democracyinaction.org
www.latimes.com
www.sacbee.com

[edit on 16-1-2006 by spliff4020]

[edit on 16-1-2006 by spliff4020]

[edit on 21-1-2006 by asala]




posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
He' old. So? He's still a murderer and a scumbag, time doesn't change that, nothing can. They should have offed him a long time ago, not make the taxpayers literally pay for a murderer to be kept alive.

I think that murderers should have their trial, if they are convicted, be automatically executed, whats the point in keeping them alive? None whatsoever. The law can be weird at times.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
THis guy is a murderer plain and simple. If Goering was blind and old, should we have spared him the Neuremberg trials?

THis guy was already in jail for murder, then had cronies go after witnesses to help his appeal case :shk: Attacking the very system that keeps order.

And lawyers that defend these guys are the lowest form IMHO. I do give his lawyers some credit. When asked about his guilt, his lawyer did not give any excuses. However I am appalled that they are pulling the native Indian card (The headband etc) in an attempt to gain sympathy



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
also, they are using the "cruel and unusual punishment" aspect to. Apparently this isnt the first time the louse tried the sympathy thing though. Looks like it will be his last though...

And of all days... on his birthday. I wonder if he'll have cake for his last meal? I'd put a file in it....lol



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Justice was not swift, so now they want to execute someone deaf and blind? What is the point of this regime of death? Surely the crimes are significant, but they waited around for so long and did not give justice, so now that they can do so they are creating an injustice.

Although I object to the death penalty at least on the campaign basis of George Bush senior, who said at the Republican Convention in 1988 "Should society be allowed to impose the death penalty on those who commit crimes of extraordinary cruelty and violence? My opponent says no - but I say yes."

But this person who is deaf and blind, is not receiving justice by lethal injection. the crime qualified in itself years ago, but today it looks more like his caretakers are no longer their brother's keeper. The burden is much more on the State than on this man, regardless of his misdeeds and terrible mistakes earlier in life. Here as in many other cases, "Justice delayed is justice denied." It works both ways.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Skip,

The inmate himself chose to drag on his appeals priocess this long. SHould he be absolved of the death penalty because of this? The state was prepared to execute him at any point in his appeals process should he simply put to a stop the legal machine that he set in motion.

If that is allowed, they guys will simply drag thier feet until they too are "too old". What if the guy was already 70 when he committed the crimes? SHould he get a free death penalty pass as well?

Edit: DO you guys ever notice these death row guys ALWAYS are referd to by three names? Robert Alton Harris, Stanely Tookie Williams etc??
whats up with that?

[edit on 1/16/06 by FredT]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Sorry, but this is the funniest thing I have heard all day, how can anyone "be too old to die", yuk, yuk, yuk, I agree with you Fred, his victims were too young to die.

I like how people always like to be the bleeding heart after the fact, I'm sure some who feel he is old and feeble and have sympathy for him were probably not even alive when he oh so vehemently practised being a son of a bitch, bastard monster to his victims. Can I say those words here?


oh well already said.

Most of the time the only respect I have for Lawyers is when they are Prosecuters.

The fact that there is a reference between the two, says it all.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
But if we take em out back and shoot the day after the trial, what happens when new evidence comes out? And the only reason it took this long, was that he used every appeal and every other means at his disposal to delay the inevitable.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
The ever present "new evidence" is why they stretch these things out. But it was his choice to do so. In regards to this case, the first murderes wer a slam dunk as far as guilt, and the other three even more so. So perhaps in cases like this the appeals process can and will be shortened.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
If he was on death row, I want to know why they revived him when his heart stopped the first time. What's the point in that? Revive a man just so you can kill him at a later date?

Twisted, but a killer is a killer.

--Kit.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Thats kind of an interesting point I had not pondered before.

The state is obligated to medicaly treat inmates. But for sake of argument lets say this killer wishes to be a DNR and have no life saving treatment performed if he has an arrest. Would he be allowed to do so?

Anybody know?



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I oppose the death penalty for many reasons, but I suppose the number one reason is its biased against the poor.

If a rich man kills someone they can buy whatever justice they need to either get off completely or at the very least get a lenient sentence. Name me one rich man that’s on death row today.

On the other hand a poor man who is accused of a capitol crime is given a lawyer who can’t even make it in the real world so they become a public defender. These are the people who made it thru law school with a D average. A poor man can’t afford a defense so in all honesty, he doesn’t get one.

DNA evidence has now cleared well over 100 former members of death row. People the state would have happily killed had someone else not come along and taken up their cause.

I am a conspiracy nut and have no doubt the state will conspire to kill a man for no other reason then to clear a crime off the books, whether he’s actually guilty or not. I do NOT trust the state with my life or the life of anyone else for that matter. The state is NOT your friend.

Anyone who trusts the state with their very life, the life of their children or the life of their neighbor is nothing more than one of its sheeple.

This is just my opinion,

Wupy


[edit on 16-1-2006 by mrwupy]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Kinda ironic how he was already dead once (heart stopped) and they revived him just to be able to kill him themselves.

Death penalties are so stuppid.
Its putting these monstrous excuses for human beings out of their missery. Its not a punishment (and please don't go "oh but when he dies he goes to hell")

Let them rot in jail untill they die by themselves, if they die, like this guy, by having a heartattack, let them die.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I agree with MrWupy on the death penalty. I just think its wrong. But I guess like everything, it has its right points, why should the taxpayers keep these scumbags alive? Though, if we'd stop convicting stupid kids who smoke pot, then there'd be a whole lot less of a need for the death penalty, IMHO. If we're talking about the death penalty as a means to clear up some space in the prisons, that is.

Eh. I'm still curious as to why they revived him. How long ago was that first heart failure?

--Kit.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   

How long ago was that first heart failure?


His heart stopped in September, but doctors revived him and returned him to death row.


Four months.



You have voted mrwupy for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.


I could not agree with you more Mrwupy! I do not agree with the death penalty at all. Thankfully it was abolished here in England. But, sadly, it's the same principle with any court case (the poor = crappy lawyer Vs rich = good lawyer).


[edit on 16-1-2006 by xeroxed88]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
4 months :shk: They might as well have let him go then. Oh well, I believe someone brought up the point that prison medical staff are obligated to administer proper medical care to all inmates. System's certainly not immune to flaws and dumb rules.

--Kit.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join